It is a cliché that US presidential elections present momentous choices with long lasting consequences. In reality few live up to that billing. The difference between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson in 1952 or between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton in 1996 were about questions of emphasis rather than big paradigm shifts. Even the more ideological contests, notably Lyndon Baines Johnson versus Barry Goldwater in 1964, or Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan in 1980, were within the realm of normal. They offered sharply diverging visions; but in neither of those contests did any candidate question the rules of the game.
美國總統選舉帶來具有長期後果的重大選擇——這話已成老生常談。在現實中，沒幾次選舉達到這一水準。1952年德懷特•艾森豪(Dwight Eisenhower)與阿德萊•史蒂文森(Adlai Stevenson)之間的差異，或者1996年鮑勃•杜爾(Bob Dole)與比爾•柯林頓(Bill Clinton)之間的差異，都在於側重點，而不是重大範式轉變。即使是更具意識形態色彩的選舉，特別是1964年林登•貝恩斯•強森(Lyndon Baines Johnson)與巴里•戈德華特(Barry Goldwater)之間，或者1980年吉米•卡特(Jimmy Carter 與隆納•雷根(Ronald Reagan)之間的對決，也都在正常範圍。那兩次選舉的候選人都提出非常不同的願景，但沒有任何候選人質疑遊戲規則。